West Yorkshire Probation Board v Townend

Rule 67(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981 does not provide the relevant proof mechanism where a probation appointment letter was sent before enforcement proceedings existed. The issue is whether the letter was posted, rather than whether it was served in proceedings.

A certificate of posting endorsed on the letter may constitute a statement in a document admissible under section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The court may draw common-sense inferences that it was created in the course of employment, that the maker had or may reasonably be supposed to have personal knowledge of the posting, and that the maker would not reasonably be expected to recall the individual posting. A separate section 9 statement is unnecessary.

The West Yorkshire Probation Board appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal of an information alleging that Simon Townend had failed to attend a probation appointment required under a Community Rehabilitation Order.

The appointment letter had been dictated by the probation officer, typed and posted by clerical staff. Its reverse contained a signed certificate recording the posting. The magistrates held that Rule 67(2) did not apply because no proceedings were pending when the letter was sent, and that the certificate was not admissible under section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The central issues were the proper proof of posting and the admissibility of the certificate.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the magistrates' approach was erroneous. The case was remitted for the magistrates to reconsider the evidence and continue their deliberations. Any order purportedly made by them on 15 March was quashed. A Community Legal Services Assessment of the respondent's publicly funded costs was ordered.
2. Rule 67(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981 was not the applicable route. The appointment letter was not a document required to be served in proceedings before a magistrates' court, because it was sent before enforcement proceedings existed. The relevant question was whether the letter had been posted, as evidence of non-compliance with the requirement to attend.
3. The certificate endorsed on the copy letter was a statement in a document for the purposes of section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Its form, including the fact that it was stamped on the reverse of the letter, did not prevent the statutory provision applying.
4. The statutory conditions were satisfied. The court could draw a common-sense inference that the document was created by a person in the course of employment. The maker could reasonably be supposed to have personal knowledge of the posting. Given the volume of correspondence and the lapse of time, the maker could not reasonably be expected to recall the individual posting, within section 24(4).
5. A separate statement under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was unnecessary. Requiring such a statement would undermine the purpose of the business-documents provision, particularly where the maker had signed the certificate and was unlikely to remember the individual posting.

• West Yorkshire Justices: dismissed the information after ruling that Rule 67(2) did not apply and that section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 did not make the evidence admissible.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the case-stated appeal to the extent indicated, quashed any relevant costs order, and remitted the case to the magistrates for reconsideration.